Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 4428115" data-attributes="member: 18">I'm surprised it's taken people, especially astute ones like Stalker0, this long to realize this. It's something I've been saying, and getting shouted at for, since the earliest stuff about the roles in 4E. The pre-4E Fighter and Paladin were certainly not &quot;Defenders&quot;. The Fighter, particularly, tending to be an utter killing machine at the sweet-spot level and if he attracted attention, it was because he was in your face and trying to kill you.Not until the Bo9S was the first time we really saw an particularly &quot;tank-y&quot; stuff for a melee combat class, apart from possibly the Knight (I didn't see the Knight until after Bo9S, don't ask). I played a White Raven-spec'd Crusader and freaking wierded my other players out. They were all like &quot;What, this power *encourages* people to hit you? That's nutty!&quot; (not MMORPG players!).As for 4E, I think Stalker0's fears are somewhat baseless, at least SO FAR.I mean right now, in 4E, if a Fighter wants to, they can put out FEROCIOUS amount of damage, especially if mobs try to disobey their Combat Challenge or move away from them. It's scary, that's what it is, a Fighter with a 2H and the right powers. He is giving up some defence, but so far? That's not proven exactly fatal or even particularly dangerous, and he can always pull on a shield if it's really necessary. It seems like most classes in 4E have a sub-role, and the Fighter's one is most certainly Striker.I do think some of the people going with the &quot;extra-Defender-y&quot; Fighter powers may end up a bit disappointed in their characters, but there's always retraining and nobody is forcing them to take that stuff.So, overall, whilst I agree completely with the original point, I think WotC have done a decent job of maintaining the Fighter's &quot;big threat&quot; nature, whilst also making him able to control the battlefield much better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 4428115, member: 18"] I'm surprised it's taken people, especially astute ones like Stalker0, this long to realize this. It's something I've been saying, and getting shouted at for, since the earliest stuff about the roles in 4E. The pre-4E Fighter and Paladin were certainly not "Defenders". The Fighter, particularly, tending to be an utter killing machine at the sweet-spot level and if he attracted attention, it was because he was in your face and trying to kill you. Not until the Bo9S was the first time we really saw an particularly "tank-y" stuff for a melee combat class, apart from possibly the Knight (I didn't see the Knight until after Bo9S, don't ask). I played a White Raven-spec'd Crusader and freaking wierded my other players out. They were all like "What, this power *encourages* people to hit you? That's nutty!" (not MMORPG players!). As for 4E, I think Stalker0's fears are somewhat baseless, at least SO FAR. I mean right now, in 4E, if a Fighter wants to, they can put out FEROCIOUS amount of damage, especially if mobs try to disobey their Combat Challenge or move away from them. It's scary, that's what it is, a Fighter with a 2H and the right powers. He is giving up some defence, but so far? That's not proven exactly fatal or even particularly dangerous, and he can always pull on a shield if it's really necessary. It seems like most classes in 4E have a sub-role, and the Fighter's one is most certainly Striker. I do think some of the people going with the "extra-Defender-y" Fighter powers may end up a bit disappointed in their characters, but there's always retraining and nobody is forcing them to take that stuff. So, overall, whilst I agree completely with the original point, I think WotC have done a decent job of maintaining the Fighter's "big threat" nature, whilst also making him able to control the battlefield much better. [/QUOTE]

Verification